Can somebody Explain Gurps?

[Acid_crash]

I don't know about GURPS 3e, but I do have GURPS 4e, which I bought after downloading the GURPS Lite booklet and made a character (which was one of the funnest characters I ever made).

Here is how the skills system works in GURPS 4e, which sounds similar to your complaints but I think they made it easier to work with. In 4e, there is only one chart to work with, and all skills function on this chart. I think in 3e, they had two seperate charts, one for DX and one for IQ. I think this change alone makes 4e much better because there is only one single chart to calculate how many character points to spend. This change also allowed them to split the skills to default off of more Attributes than just DX and IQ.

All skills in gurps are based on an Attribute (similar to D&D). Each skill is rated in one of four categories: Easy, Average, Hard, Very Hard (unlike D&D). The harder the skill is to learn, the more character points it costs to improve that skill (similar to D&D with the class and cross-class skills difference). The amount of points you spend on the skill will determine how well it functions, as it related to the attribute it falls under.

Most skills are IQ and DX based, but I have seen a few also based on HT, PER, and WILL. IQ = Intelligence, DX = Dexterity, HT = Health, PER = Perception, and WILL = Willpower.

The ease of learning the skill will determine how many points it costs to increase the skill, and at what level it will be...

If you spend 1 point on an Easy skill, it will be at Attribute +0. If you have a DX = 13, and spend 1 point on a DX Easy skill, then the skill will be 13-. In other words, you roll 3d6, and if you roll 13 or less, you succeed. Make sense?

If you spend 1 point on an Average skill, it will be at Attribute -1. So, for a DX 13 character, a DX/Average skill will be rated at 12-.

If you spend 1 point on a Hard skill, it is at Attribute -2. And if it's a Very Hard skill, it is at Attribute -3.

It costs more to get a Hard skill to be equal to Attribute +0 than an Easy skill, and I think Gurps does it very well that it simulates that harder skills are, in fact, harder to learn. This I like, and it's something that D&D/d20 doesn't do very well. The higher skill level you want, the more it costs you. To get a skill that is Hard to be Attribute +0, it costs 4 character points, compared to the 1 for an Easy skill.

Gurps doesn't really have a 'skills rank' system, like d20, but it is a 'skill level' system.

The skill level you want for your character is RELATIVE TO THE SKILL'S CONTROLLING ATTRIBUTE. I think that is an important distinction that a lot of people don't understand, and fundamentally different than d20. Gurps doesn't try to be exact with skill ranks, like d20 does, but it does succeed in having people spend their points on what is important for their character relative to the character's basic attributes.

I don't know if how I explained this makes any sense, but I like both games and play them both for different reasons.

 

[J_D]

Here is how the skills system works in GURPS 4e, which sounds similar to your complaints but I think they made it easier to work with. In 4e, there is only one chart to work with, and all skills function on this chart. I think in 3e, they had two seperate charts, one for DX and one for IQ. I think this change alone makes 4e much better because there is only one single chart to calculate how many character points to spend. This change also allowed them to split the skills to default off of more Attributes than just DX and IQ.

Yes, in 3rd there were two different tables, one for IQ and one for DX, with different point costs. I also consider this an improvement that they reduced this to one standard cost for any given attribute mod/skill difficulty combo.

Most skills are IQ and DX based, but I have seen a few also based on HT, PER, and WILL. IQ = Intelligence, DX = Dexterity, HT = Health, PER = Perception, and WILL = Willpower.

Sounds like they improved it then, if skills can be based on other than only the two.

The ease of learning the skill will determine how many points it costs to increase the skill, and at what level it will be...

[snip examples]

It costs more to get a Hard skill to be equal to Attribute +0 than an Easy skill, and I think Gurps does it very well that it simulates that harder skills are, in fact, harder to learn. This I like, and it's something that D&D/d20 doesn't do very well. The higher skill level you want, the more it costs you.

As I said before, I don't object to this.

Gurps doesn't really have a 'skills rank' system, like d20, but it is a 'skill level' system.

Yes, and the details of how they implented this is what I object to.

The skill level you want for your character is RELATIVE TO THE SKILL'S CONTROLLING ATTRIBUTE.

And this is exactly what I object to.

I think that is an important distinction that a lot of people don't understand, and fundamentally different than d20.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I do understand exactly how it works, and I despise it. I demand and insist upon having a system of skill ratings (call them ranks, points, whatever you want) that are independent and absolute in and of themselves, although the costs per point may increase nonlinearly and I have no problem with the base attribute modifying the end chance of success.

Gurps doesn't try to be exact with skill ranks, like d20 does, but it does succeed in having people spend their points on what is important for their character relative to the character's basic attributes.

Relative isn't good enough for me. I want an objective and absolute measure that says a character has X amount of training/education/experience in a given skill. The basic attribute should modify the end chance of success, but the attribute itself should have no part in determining the actual degree of training/education/experience invested in the skill.

I don't know if how I explained this makes any sense, but I like both games and play them both for different reasons.

You explained it clearly enough, and GURPS 3rd worked basically the same way. It sounds like 4th did a little streamlining without changing the basic way skills work. Which means I think it still sucks, however great other parts of the game system might be.

 

[Acid_crash]

I think you could come up with a skill rank system for Gurps, just get rid of all the Attribute options for the harder skills that would start the skill off at a lesser value than the Attribute, like a Very Hard skill at Attribute -3 costing 1 point, as an example.

Here's an option:

Begin all skills at base Attribute for the first rank, so rank 1 gives you Attribute +0. The reason is that the system uses the Default system if you don't have any 'ranks' in it at all, the skill can still be attempted but at a penalty.

An example: Swimming is a HT/Easy skill. With no points in Swimming, it Defaults to HT-4. If your HT is 12, with no points in Swimming, then to make your check it requires a roll of 8- on 3d6. Not good.

The Categories of Easy, Average, Hard, and Very Hard need to be kept.

Skill ranks in Gurps skills, if I did this, would begin at Rank 0 and go up from there. If you have rank 0 in a skill, then it is Attribute+0, and it shows a marginal amount of training in the skill. This avoids having to default, as shown above in the Swimming example.

Skill ranks in Gurps skills would start at 0 and go up 1 per level attained. Costs would be the same as in the Gurps book, but now we are just dealing with the baseline score of any skill beginning at 0 (or Attribute +0 for marginal training) and above, ignoring anything below. This could also get you away from the whole Relative score and more into the "I have 2 ranks in Forgery (IQ/Hard) and to get 2 ranks in Forgery it would cost a total of 12 character points (for IQ+2)." For Forgery at Rank 0 (or IQ+0, it would cost 4 character points).

I think people should also understand that, to increase skills, you only have to pay the difference to get the next skill rank. For Hard skills, Rank 0 costs 4 points, Rank 1 costs 8 (or +4), Rank 2 costs 12 (or another +4), etc... and you just add the rank to the Attribute.

Doing it this way, you can go from Rank 0 during character creation, play for a while, spend a few points to get Rank 1, and so on... The total costs are if you want to spend all those points up front to have a skill at Skill Rank 2 instead of 0, which people can do as well.

Hell, I just might do this with my own games and see how it goes.

How is this idea for using Gurps skills?

 

[coyote6]

To be more precise, the fist-clenching and teeth-grinding problem for me is how skills are bought for the character. There is no "absolute scale" of skill that starts at 0 and works its way up, as does every other RPG with skills I have seen (note: I haven't seen every game system ever published, so this is not a claim of absolute uniqueness for GURPS).

It's not; Hero is much the same, with the exception that some skills are based on a flat number, rather than an attribute-derived number. (But then, GURPS 4e allows for skill rolls to be based on 10 rather than an attribute, too.)

Attributes in GURPS don't determine how much training you have in a skill; they help determine how good you are at a skill (and they perhaps do so to a larger extent than, say, d20). A guy with 16 pt in Guns has a lot more training & experience than a guy with 1 pt in Guns.

It's not that much different than d20 or any other game where skill rolls are based on some sort of "skill+attribute"; GURPS is basically "skill+attribute-modifier" (with the modifier being based on how hard the skill is to learn).

<shrug>

 

[velm]

It is like someone else said earlier about GURPS being a more 'realistic' game over DND. I like them both, as they both have their good things and their bad things.
I think of DND, in all of its forms, as a 'feel good game', a game where players do over-the-top things to save the day. Nothing is wrong with it, that is the way it was designed to be.
I think of GURPS as a game where, for those times when you want some thought into gameplay, and for some fast and furious combat. GURPS is a game where can truely be mutltitalented. Wield a sword and cast a spell.
The combat can be radically different, in DND a fighter can have a dozen arrows stuck in him, in GURPS, if you see a person with a dozen arrows in them, they are on the ground dead.

 

[Ashrum the Black]

Wow. Thanks for all the great input folks. Looks like at the very least I'll be checking out the gurps traveller books for the background and campaign information that was a little light in the T20 books. After that I just may check out the gurps system as a whole to run my scifi campaign. I love d20 with its cinematic fights, but for scifi I like a little more realism and "grittiness".

Once again, thanks a lot guys!

-Ahsrum

 

[CyberSpyder]

Relative isn't good enough for me. I want an objective and absolute measure that says a character has X amount of training/education/experience in a given skill. The basic attribute should modify the end chance of success, but the attribute itself should have no part in determining the actual degree of training/education/experience invested in the skill.

Sounds...largely like semantics.

I mean, it's easy to present the skill system in precisely that way. If you spend 1 point on a skill, you have it at a level of 0. If you spend 2 points, it's at a level of 1. 4 points, a level of 2. And so forth.

When you actually use the skill, you add the attribute it's based on to your level in the skill, and you subtract a modifier based on its difficulty (0 for easy, 1 for average, 2 for hard, so forth).

Baddabing, baddaboom. Your degree of training is independent of the attribute. It's just a question of presentation.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Speed and AC

First: I like many people buy GURPS for their wonderfully detailed world books. They have a wonderful balance of statistics and world building and are a great mine of ideas. Advantages are a great place to get new feats, class features, and talents (in Modern d20). As for playing GURPS, eh. I've run a CoC d20 game with wound points and no vitality points, and it ran a little more smoothly than the GURPS games I've played in the past.

Second: Core d20 doesn't have modifiers for speed. But if you get the Star Wars d20 book there are defense modifiers for speed (up to +10 Defense and -8 to hit) and it wouldn't be that hard to modify them for D&D or Modern.

 

[Psion]

The GURPS sourcebooks are models of how to write material that is usefull in game, without being rules heavy or that tied to GURPS mechanics.

Indeed. I don't care much for the GURPS mechanics (in the same way that Thanee doesn't care for psionics ), but I have a few GURPS supplements that make great general resources.

 

[Scribble]

I love GURPS actually. One of my favorite systems. I'm putting together a new GURPS campaign right now actually.

I wish it used more then just d6s though. I have all those pretty dice why can't I use them!!! hehe